In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23390 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Veer Singh, a co-accused in a murder case (Section 302 IPC), relying on the precedent where his accomplice Bijendra was already released on bail.
Release of the applicant Veer Singh on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131688
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23390 of 2023
Applicant :- Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. A.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing first informant.
Learned AGA has filed counter afÏdavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to file rejoinder afÏdavit.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Veer Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0509 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, police station Parikshitgarh, district Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 28.12.2022, a delayed FIR dated 29.12.2022 was lodged by first informant-Indrapal which was registered as Case Crime No.0509 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, police station Parikshitgarh, district Meerut. In the aforesaid FIR two persons, namely, Bijendra and Veer Singh have been nominated as named accused whereas two unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.
The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR dated 29.12.2022 is to the effect that the named accused along with two un-known persons are said to have committed murder of father of the first informant by throttling.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Bijendra has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12558 of 2023 (Bijendra Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference the order dated 05.04.2023 is reproduced herein-under :-
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Adesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.509 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with his brother Veer Singh and two unknown persons are said to have throttled the father of the informant on 28.12.2022 at about 04:30 p.m. in the field near the canal. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the deceased person on 11.2.2022 also, whereby an FIR No.0050 of 2022 was lodged at the police station.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about more than twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the information at the police station was given by the nephew of the informant on the same evening on 28.12.2022 at 19:31 hours which was entered at GD No.40 on 28.12.2022. Learned counsel has stated that the informant Indrapal son of Khemchand had also accompanied his nephew to the police station as is evident from the perusal of GD No.40, which is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed with bail application. Learned counsel has stated that had the applicant committed the said offence, his name would have come up at the stage of informing the police the same evening. The FIR has been lodged just to usurp the property which the applicant and his brother inherited from the deceased person. Learned counsel has further stated that the eye-witnesses, who are stated to have seen the offence, are interested witnesses and have just taken the line of the informant to keep the applicant behind the bar. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has no criminal history except the said FIR No.0050 of 2022. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.12.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant carried the strong motive as is evident from the statement of wife of the deceased person Seebo Saini, whereby she categorically stated that the deceased person would have got a compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the electricity department and the applicant and his brother Veer Singh wanted to get the said amount from the deceased which he was not inclined to give to them. Learned counsel has further stated that the said strong motive is the force which prompted the accused persons to commit murder of his father. Learned counsel has stated that there is no cause of falsely implicating the applicant.
7. Learned A.G.A. has also reiterated the arguments tendered by learned counsel for the informant.
8. The motive is a double-edged sword and if it can be a reason for committing the crime, it may also be a reason for false implication.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the information at the police station was furnished by the nephew of the informant Sushil Saini and the informant had accompanied him to the police station as also the fact that FIR is delayed by more than twenty hours, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Bijendra involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."
On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned named co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the case of the present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned named co-accused so as to deny bail to applicant. On the basis of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order dated 05.04.2023, he submits that applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in custody since 21.12.2022. As such he has undergone more than six months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which it can be said that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
He submits that applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing first informant has also opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is claiming parity with coaccused Bijendra. However, subsequently, a FIR has been registered against Bijendra by the mother of Bijendra herself. He therefore submits that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of the applicant.
Having heard the leaned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing the first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that co-accused Bijendra has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, there being no such distinguishing feature so as to distinguish the case of the present applicant from the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail so as to deny him bail, the clean antecedents of applicant but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Veer Singh , involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 4.7.2023. Rks.
Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused who was already enlarged on bail in the same case.
Whether the nature of the offence (murder) and custody period warrant the grant of bail despite the gravity of the charge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bijendra Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶32
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12558 of 2023 (Bijendra Vs. State of U.P.)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Veer Singh
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
